close
close
Colorado judges to consider revisions to child neglect law | Courts

Colorado judges to consider revisions to child neglect law | Courts

The Colorado Supreme Court announced on monday will decide whether a recent change to the state’s child neglect law requires more than speculation that a parent’s drug use will cause future negative effects on a newborn.

At least three of the seven members of the court must agree to hear a case on appeal.

The justices also indicated that they could intervene to review two recent decisions by trial judges. The first involves a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that alters how prosecutors must prove prior convictions, and the second addresses the legality of municipal ordinances that punish identical crimes more harshly than state law.

Drug use affects newborns

Before 2020, a court could declare a child abandoned if, among other things, the child tested positive at birth for controlled substances not authorized by prescription. That year, however, legislators enacted a new set of criteria. Now, a child is abandoned if he or she is “born affected” by alcohol or drug exposure and his or her “health or well-being is threatened” by substance use.

Interpreting that language for the first time in Augustdecided a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals, 2-1, the government must prove more than the possibility that symptoms of drug exposure will one day manifest.

“We recognize, and do not intend to underestimate, the devastating effects that a child can suffer after being exposed to methamphetamine or other substances during pregnancy,” Judge Matthew D. Grove wrote for himself and Judge Grant T. Sullivan. “Because the General Assembly decided that mere exposure is no longer sufficient to justify the adjudication of a child, we cannot substitute our judgment for the legislature’s policy decision.”







courts_community_19121611_7577

Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Matthew D. Grove speaks with 17-year-old juniors Morgan Rasmussen and Brisais Vargas. STRIVE Prep — RISE School in Green Valley Ranch hosted a Community Courts event, presenting oral arguments before a three-judge panel before the Colorado Court of Appeals on Tuesday, April 19, 2022. Photo by Steve Peterson




Judge Terry Fox distanced herself from that reading, noting that it would allow parents to use harmful substances during pregnancy, “but if the child was not born prematurely, did not have immediate detectable growth problems, or did not experience withdrawal symptoms, the child would not be a dependent or abandoned child.”

“We definitely agree with the court’s conclusion,” Heather Thompson, who testified in favor of the 2020 legislation on behalf of the nonprofit Elephant Circle, told Colorado Politics after the panel’s decision. “We believe this was the intent of the legal change.”

The government appealed to the state Supreme Court, asking it to review the panel’s interpretation and its related conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to find an El Paso County child abandoned under the circumstances.

The judges will address those questions.

the case is Persons in interest of the BCB

New rule

Colorado’s “three strikes” law, known as the Common Criminal Law, requires judges to impose three or four times the maximum sentence if a defendant is convicted and has multiple prior felonies. However, prior convictions must arise “from separate and distinct criminal episodes.”

In June of this year, however, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Erlinger v. United StatesGoverning juries must decide beyond a reasonable doubt whether a defendant committed prior crimes on different occasions under standard federal criminal law.







Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is seen in Washington as the justices prepare to hand down decisions, Monday, June 17, 2019.




At the time the decision was dropped, a Mesa County jury had recently convicted Andrew Gregg of two felonies and one misdemeanor. Prosecutors also argued that Gregg should be sentenced as a habitual offender because he had four prior robbery convictions, but the previous ones were not part of the jury’s verdict.

After Erlinger and in anticipation of Gregg’s sentencing, the defense decided to dismiss the standard criminal charges because Gregg questioned whether three of his previous convictions stemmed from “separate and distinct” episodes. The prosecution admitted that the Supreme Court’s decision meant that judges would no longer be able to decide those questions after the jury’s verdict. But he argued that a “replacement jury” could determine whether Gregg qualified as a habitual offender.

In a Sept. 9 order, District Court Judge Matthew D. Barrett ruled that there could be no further proceedings on the standard criminal allegations. He invoked the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy, reasoning that case law prohibited him from empaneling another jury after the prosecution had already had the opportunity to prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

“While I recognize that at the time of trial the prosecution did not know that it needed to prove to the jury the defendant’s customary criminal charges, I am obligated to follow applicable law,” Barrett wrote.

The district attorney’s office appealed directly to the state Supreme Court, arguing that the principle of double jeopardy does not apply in Gregg’s scenario.

The Supreme Court ordered Gregg and Barrett to respond to the prosecution’s request. He also invited the criminal defense bar, the ACLU of Colorado, the district attorneys’ council, the attorney general’s office and the state public defender to present their opinions.

the case is The people against Gregg.

Municipal sanctions

Finally, the Supreme Court has expressed its interest in an appeal before the municipal courts.

Last year, the judges faced a scenario involving a pair of defendants in Rifle. Two people were issued a summons on a municipal code charge of theft. The city’s maximum jail time for the crime was 18 times longer than if the defendants had been charged under Colorado’s theft statute.

The defendants asked the Supreme Court to declare the Rifle code unconstitutional to the extent that it punished an identical crime more harshly. However, after the judges ordered Rifle to respond, the city council reluctantly backed down and changed its code. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.







Inside the prison. Jail cells, dark background.




Several months later, Aleah Michelle Camp was charged with robbery in Westminster Municipal Court. Compared to the same state offense, you would face a maximum municipal fine nine times greater and a prison sentence 36 times greater than that imposed under Colorado law.

As in the Rifle case, Camp questioned the legality of the Westminster ordinance. Similarly, the local prosecutor defended the city’s right to more severely penalize theft under its inherent authority.

“Westminster theft happens in Westminster. Westminster theft affects Westminster retailers. When Westminster retailers are affected, they have trouble doing business in Westminster,” the city attorney’s office argued. “Therefore, it is a local concern to address that criminal behavior.”

Judge Rebekah B. Watadah declined to declare the ordinance unconstitutional, believing that a locality’s sentencing plan need not be consistent with that of the state.

Camp appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that municipalities are undermining the legislature’s efforts impose statewide uniformity in criminal sentencing and grant non-reviewable discretion to officers about where to file charges against defendants.

The Supreme Court ordered a response to Camp’s petition and invited the attorney general’s office, the criminal defense bar and the Colorado Municipal League to weigh in.

the case is Town against camp.

Back To Top